Bad News for Bush?

[MobBoss]

Well, it appears the Supreme Court has ruled that the administration has overstepped its bounds where military tribunals for gitmo inmates are concerned: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html and various other sites are carrying the story.

Several things about this:

1. This is not saying that Gitmo is illegal, but it does say that the military cannot conduct military tribunals without Supreme Court Jurisdiction.

2. I see this also as a power play by the Supreme Court as a counter to the "Detainee Treatment Act" which specifically limited the Supreme Courts jurisdiction where Gitmo was concerned.

3. Brings up the question of exactly when are military trials legal and under what circumstances.

Most likely this is just the first step of several signaling the closure of Gitmo as a holding area for detainees. Bush has been saying in the last few months that he wishes to close it and this will most likely signal to him that the time to do so is here.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Mabey we should just turn them over to there respective arab goverments from now on, I'm sure after a few months in a Turkish prison with it's lovely dating scene a few of them will wish GITMO was back.

 

[Masquerouge]

I admire the Scotus for making that stand

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Mabey we should just turn them over to there respective arab goverments from now on, I'm sure after a few months in a Turkish prison with it's lovely dating scene a few of them will wish GITMO was back.

And let's use suicide bombers too, I'm sure after a few months of the US being evil the Iraqis will wish the 'old' occupation was back.

I'm sorry, Shining Beacon of Liberty and Freedom to the World, anyone?

 

[Elrohir]

And let's use suicide bombers too, I'm sure after a few months of the US being evil the Iraqis will wish the 'old' occupation was back.

I'm sorry, Shining Beacon of Liberty and Freedom to the World, anyone?

He has a point though - Compared to what would happen to these guys if they were caught in terrorist activity in most of the world, Gitmo is an amusement park with mascots wandering around looking for hugs.

Anyway, I think this is an awful call by the SCOTUS. Exactly why we need better judges, instead of the lame-brained liberals that make up the majority of the court now.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sorry, Shining Beacon of Liberty and Freedom to the World, anyone?

If in your opinion, the US isnt this, then exactly who do you think is? Libya?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

[serious=off]

He has a point though - Compared to what would happen to these guys if they were caught in terrorist activity in most of the world, Gitmo is an amusement park with mascots wandering around looking for hugs.

I suppose "most of the world" doesn't include West Europe, which is full of godless liberals, East Europe, where the powerless UN is doing nothing, Africa, ditto, South America, where the terrorists are running the countries and growing coca, or China where they've formed triads and become the biggest businesses in town.

Anyway, I think this is an awful call by the SCOTUS. Exactly why we need better judges, instead of the lame-brained liberals that make up the majority of the court now.

I think you're seeing liberal boogeymen. How about seeing Catholic boogeymen next?

[serious=on]

If in your opinion, the US isnt this, then exactly who do you think is? Libya?

In my opinion, it isn't a relative standard.

 

[.Shane.]

Most likely this is just the first step of several signaling the closure of Gitmo as a holding area for detainees. Bush has been saying in the last few months that he wishes to close it and this will most likely signal to him that the time to do so is here.

Yes, he's been saying that because his legal advisors have seen this decision coming a long way.

Why would he wish to close something that he/his policies essentially created?

Anyway, I think this is an awful call by the SCOTUS. Exactly why we need better judges, instead of the lame-brained liberals that make up the majority of the court now.

Do you follow the news? The SCotUS is believed to have a conservative majority now.

The vote was 5-3 (Roberts exempted himself as he'd litigated elements of this case prior to his appointment). Anyone have the list of who voted for what? Curious to see what Alito voted.

WHO WAS THE CONSERVATIVE TRAITOR! We'll have Toby Keith put a boot in his ... !!!

 

[EdwardTking]

He acknowledged that he had worked as a
bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden

Since when is that a criminal offense?

Hitler was a war criminal, but that doesn't mean that his
chauffer or personal pilots were automatically criminals.

If (I don't know) the USA has nothing more than that on him,
then it seems to me that the US should either regard him as a
civilian and release him or treat him as a proper prisoner of war.

Oh well, if they can not catch Osama, they can always
exercise US vengeance on his bodyguard driver.

 

[Elrohir]

[serious=off]I suppose "most of the world" doesn't include West Europe, which is full of godless liberals, East Europe, where the powerless UN is doing nothing, Africa, ditto, South America, where the terrorists are running the countries and growing coca, or China where they've formed triads and become the biggest businesses in town.

Most of the world would be much of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, parts of South America and even Russia. That's "most" of the world.

I think you're seeing liberal boogeymen. How about seeing Catholic boogeymen next?

Nah, no boogeymen. Just kooks in black robes.

Do you follow the news? The SCotUS is believed to have a conservative majority now.

The vote was 5-3 (Roberts exempted himself as he'd litigated elements of this case prior to his appointment). Anyone have the list of who voted for what? Curious to see what Alito voted.

WHO WAS THE CONSERVATIVE TRAITOR! We'll have Toby Keith put a boot in his ... !!!

Not by me. Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are considered to be conservative. Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Steven's are liberals, and Kennedy is a moderate, who swings both ways, and it seems to me he swings more to the left than the right. (Legally, not sexually ) That would be a tied court, or one with a left-bias, not a conservative one.

Roberts recused himself. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissented, and the rest formed the majority.

 

[King Flevance]

Oh well, if they can not catch Osama, they can always
exercise US vengeance on his bodyguard driver.

I don't see the US doing anything but stuff like this since the whole 9/11 fiasco. Sure, a small exception here or there. But for the majority this about sums up our actions in the past couple of years.

 

[C~G]

That was like about a time when someone wakes up from this horrible nightmare.

What you see here is how balance of power works in democracy in straight contrast to military dictatorship.

Now, we have to just wait and see what actually happens.

 

[EdwardTking]

I suppose that the argument for his guilt is analagous to that
of the getaway driver who sits in the car and does not enter
the bank being robbed.

However a civilian court should try that.

His defence would likely be that he regarded Osama as fighting
an irregular but legal war. The prosecution would argue that
he was a party to a conspiracy to murder.

But for jury to convict, if certain, he was an accessory to murder.

 

[Elrohir]

Now, we have to wait and see what actually happens.

Shrub wil declar himself dIctator 4 LiFe!!1! Were living in a facsist state, with Darth Cheney pulling the strings! We must resist the dictators and there Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to dominate the wolrd!!


Sorry, couldn't help myself. I just spent some time over at DemocraticUnderground.com, and I'm still laughing at all the kooks who keep ranting about how Bush is going to become a dictator and ruthlessly murder all the liberals and adorable puppies in the world.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

From one reading, there is nothing stopping these individuals being interned for the duration of the conflict.

 

[Elrohir]

From one reading, there is nothing stopping these individuals being interned for the duration of the conflict.

Nope, there isn't. That's the really interesting thing; apparently Bush can't try them by military tribunal - but the court didn't address whether he had to try them at all.

In their quest for getting civilian trials for the detainee's at Guantanamo, they might have just shot themselves in the foot, because I really don't see many of them getting civilian trials.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Mmm. Court martials are an option, as is disappearing them.

 

[eyrei]

I hate to break it to you, but Roberts apparently ruled in this case in his last appointment, and ruled against the government there. It isn't just the liberals that realize that Gitmo violates the concepts this country was founded on. The fact that he did not appear to be a partisan was the reason I was happy with his confirmation.

 

[EdwardTking]

Mmm. Court martials are an option, as is disappearing them.

If they were smart, they would have bugged him and released him.

 

[Elrohir]

I hate to break it to you, but Roberts apparently ruled in this case in his last appointment, and ruled against the government there. It isn't just the liberals that realize that Gitmo violates the concepts this country was founded on. The fact that he did not appear to be a partisan was the reason I was happy with his confirmation.

He ruled on this case in the lower circuit, but he was on the opposite side. He recused himself because of this now. (I don't think he had to, but whatever) Wiki

A three judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Arthur Raymond Randolph, John G. Roberts, Jr. (now the Chief Justice of the United States), and Stephen Fain Williams, unanimously reversed this decision on July 15, 2005. [6] Justice Randolph wrote the decision, and cited the following reasons for the legality of the military commissions:

1. Military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants because they have been approved by Congress.
2. The 1949 Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies.
3. Even if the Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against al-Qaeda that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure—a "competent tribunal"—without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried.
4. Under the terms of the 1949 Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.

In addition, they ruled that the president has the constitutional authority to try Hamdan because Congress authorized such activity by statute. Also, the court of appeals stated that the judicial branch of the United States government cannot enforce the Geneva Conventions treaty, thus invalidating Hamdan's argument that he cannot be tried until after his prisoner of war status is determined.[